Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I
Instituto Politécnico – IPRJ, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Caixa
Postal 97282, 28601-970 Nova Friburgo, RJ. Brazil. einsfeld@iprj.uerj.br
II
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta,
Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2G7. dwm@civil.ualberta.ca
III
Centre for Engineering Research – CFER, 250 Karl Clark Road, Edmonton, AB,
Canada, T6N 1E4. N.Yoosef@cfertech.com
ABSTRACT
Introduction
The buckling mode expected in a specific case depends, among other factors, on
the boundary conditions, magnitude and shape of the initial pipe imperfection,
the type of axial constraints and soil reaction. The main effect of the nonlinear
stress-strain relationship is to allow the prediction of the formation of a plastic
hinge in the most loaded pipe cross section in the middle of the buckle. This
paper describes a numerical procedure developed by the PipeTec Group of the
Department of Civil Engineering of the University of Alberta for the analysis of
global and local buckling behavior of high temperature pressurized pipelines. This
study aims to supply the engineering staff and pipeline operators with a tool that
allows them to evaluate the actual conditions of the pipe in different load
conditions.
Nomenclature
Greek Symbols
Some numerical tools for pipeline analysis are well known by researchers and
engineers and have been tested in different situations in the last twenty years.
This is the case of PIPLIN-III (Structural Software Development, 1981), PlusOne
(Andrew Palmer and Associates, 1995), PIPSOL (Nixon, 1994) and ABP (Zhou and
Murray, 1994). All of these programs are based on pipe beam elements and
elastic-plastic soil springs. However, they differ significantly in the formulation of
their pipe beam element. For the PIPSOL pipe element, the material is modelled
as non-linear elastic. Consequently, the PIPSOL solution runs are faster than the
runs of the other three programs. The pipe elements in PIPLIN, PlusOne and ABP
can model the elastic-plastic behavior of the pipe material. All the programs
assume that the pipe cross-section remains circular. Therefore, cross-sectional
deformation, including ovalization and local buckling, are not simulated. The
recent version of program ABAQUS (Hibbitt et al., 2000) also incorporates
pipeline beam elements, soil-pipe interaction and large displacements in a way
that one can model a considerable length of pipeline and predict the overall
behavior of the structure for different load conditions.
The validation of ABP has been made through comparison with results produced
by programs exhaustively used, and considered as a standard by the industry, as
PIPLIN. Some comparisons are presented in the work of Yoosef-Ghodsi and
Murray, 2002. The numerical procedure described in this paper, with the use of
ABP and ABAQUS, was applied in many situations that occurred in the field.
Nevertheless, the results of these investigations are property of the industry
companies that contracted the analysis and, consequently, the publication of
these results is quite limited. An example of industrial consultation that was
published, concerning the case of NPS12 Norman Wells Pipeline, can be seen in
the paper of Yossef-Ghodsi et al., 2000.
At points in the pipe, remote from the wrinkle, there is no motion of the pipe
relative to the soil. The first point that one encounters transversing along the pipe
in the direction away from the wrinkle where no relative movement occurs, is
called a 'soil-anchor' point. For a pipeline of length L moving from this anchor-
point in the direction of the wrinkle, as shown in Fig. 2a, the end
displacement uL is obtained solving the differential equation of equilibrium that
arises from the free body diagram of Fig. 2b, where P is the compressive reactive
end force at the wrinkle and Nx is the tensile axial force at position x.
If the right end of pipeline model represented in Fig. 2a is free to move, the
reactive force P is equal to zero. In this case, the interaction between the pipe
length and the end displacement is shown in Fig. 3. The most interesting aspect
of this interaction is that the maximum end displacement reaches a limit beyond
which it no longer increases as the embedded length increases. This means that
there is no point in modelling a long pipeline using an embedded length longer
than the one corresponding to the anchor length La and, therefore, much
computational effort can be saved in this way.
Nevertheless, if far field conditions are imposed at the outer ends of the model,
only a small portion of the pipe, shorter than the anchor length, has to be
modelled. This portion is usually called the characteristic part of the pipe. The
pipe sections adjacent to this characteristic part are assumed to be horizontal and
straight. The far field conditions are obtained by solving the differential equations
that govern the elastic-plastic pipe-soil interaction shown in Fig. 2b. This solution
gives the axial force Nx that should be applied at the inner ends of the model in
order to simulate the behavior of the pipe sections within the characteristic
portion of the pipe. Solving the differential equations (Andrew Palmer and
Associates, 1995), one can obtain:
This strategy is exemplified in Fig. 5, where the soil-slip solutions for the anchor
length segments for different temperature changes are represented by the
dashed inclined curves, and the resisting force vs. shortening of the FE model
segment is represented by the continuous curve. In this latter curve, the peak
load corresponds to the limit point for the initiation of the local buckling. It can be
seen that the wrinkle will not form for a differential temperature change T1, as
the soil-slip solution intercepts the curve obtained from the FE model segment in
the ascending part (Point A) where the resisting force of the FE model segment
exceeds the applied force arising from the expansion of the anchor segments. On
the other hand, the wrinkle is already developed for a differential temperature
change T2, as the intersection happens to be in the descending part of the FE
model curve (Point B) after traversing the region where expansion forces exceed
the FE resisting force.
where S is the buckle length, n2=P/EI, P is the axial load at the buckle, E is the
elastic modulus, I is the second moment of area of the pipe, m=w/EI for
upheaval buckling (vertical mode), w is the selfweight per unit length, and is
the coefficient of friction between the pipe and subgrade.
Solving Eq.(3) and applying a compatibility equation that accounts for the
reduction in the axial force in the buckle, the following result for the maximum
amplitude of the buckle (see Fig. 6) is obtained for upheaval buckling:
The buckle length obtained for the case of a very large coefficient of friction is:
For snaking buckling (lateral mode) shown in Fig. 7, the differential equation
governing the deflection is the same as Eq.(3), except that m=w/EI. For snaking
buckling the following results are obtained:
In this analysis it is assumed that the cross section of the pipe remains circular.
This is true at least in the initial stages of buckling, although the global buckling
responses discussed here may lead to local buckling and failure of the pipe by
yielding and ovalization. More details about this derivation can be seen in Hobbs
(1984). In this work, only the derived equations for buckle length and amplitude
are presented as they are of interest to predict the pipe global buckling
configuration.
The model shown in Fig. 8 was used for the analysis performed with the ABP
program. Only a characteristic portion of the pipe was modelled as the far field
condition was imposed at the outer pipe ends. The pipe model was equally
divided in 64 three-node beam elements. The analysis was performed for the
snaking behavior considering a differential temperature up to 60º C. The IOS
input in the model had a maximum amplitude equal to 50 mm, as shown in Fig.
8. Note that the vertical scale has been exaggerated in order to make the initial
imperfection visible. Besides the temperature change, the pipe was also subjected
to an internal pressure equal to 3.0 MPa. The distance between the IOSs (32 m)
was initially estimated using Eq.5. This equation gives S = 31.2 m for w = 1.0
N/mm and E = 200,000 MPa.
The relationship between the temperature change and the maximum amplitude of
an equilibrium configuration is shown in Fig. 9. The early peak in the curve
corresponds to the critical thermal loading condition of the overall buckling of the
pipe. At this point (57º C), the pipe develops an "S" shape as the buckling
amplitude jumps to the next equilibrium configuration, i.e. it snaps through as
shown in Fig. 9.
The next step in the snaking analysis is to evaluate whether wrinkling will be
triggered by the snaking buckle. This is done by applying a loading sequence that
develops the wrinkling mechanism in a FE model that represents a segment of
the pipeline in the region of greatest curvature of the snaking mode. The segment
considered in this example has a length of 1.83 meters, that corresponds to
approximately 6 times the diameter of the pipe. The end axial load vs. end axial
displacement curve for the beam segment model is then obtained from the FE
analysis. This diagram is plotted against the soil-pipe interaction diagram related
to a selected temperature change, as shown in Fig. 11. As shown previously
in Fig. 5, the point of intersection between the two curves indicates whether the
pipe will buckle locally during the global snaking buckling.
The loading sequence that develops the buckling mechanism considers an initial
curved configuration followed by an axial displacement of the end points towards
each other. This latter displacement simulates the pipe anchor length expansion
due to the change in temperature. The initial curved configuration may be
supposed to be formed during the pipe laying operation. In the worst scenario, a
stress corresponding to the yield stress is assumed to occur in the extreme fibers
of the pipe, as it is unlikely that the contractor and owner would knowingly permit
plastic deformation to occur during the laying operation.
In the curve related to the ABAQUS FE model presented in Fig. 11, the peak load
corresponds to the limit point for the initiation of the local buckling. For the
temperature of 57º C, which corresponds to the snap-through behavior shown
in Fig. 9, the intersection occurs at the ascending part of the diagram and,
therefore, no local buckling will occur at this stage. Nevertheless, for a
temperature of 100º C, the positions of the two curves indicate that the
expansive driving force exceeds the resisting force of the wrinkle and therefore
the wrinkle will develop a large amplitude in the descending part of the diagram.
In this case, a severe wrinkle is expected to develop and threatens the pipe
integrity at that point. From Fig. 11 one can say that a temperature over 90º C
should be avoided in order not to compromise the pipeline safety requirements.
Concluding Remarks
A numerical procedure for the analysis of global and local buckling of pipelines
has been presented. The numerical technique considers the use of a pipe-soil
interaction formulation for the determination of the global buckling configuration,
and the use of a FE commercial package (ABAQUS) for the local buckling
evaluation. The IOS was predicted with the use of an elastic analytical model. It
was shown that the buckling length and the expected deformed post-buckling
pipeline configuration were obtained with a good approximation using this model.
This study is intended to supply engineering staff and pipeline operators with a
tool that permits them to evaluate the susceptibility to buckling for different load
conditions on the pipe. In this way, the correct mitigation measures for thermal
buckling can be taken into account either by acceptance of global buckling but
prevention of the development of excessive bending moment, or by prevention of
any occurrence of bending.
Acknowledgements
References
Hibbitt, H.D., Karlsson, B.I., and Sorensen, P., 2000, "ABAQUS Theoretical
Manual", Version 4.5, March 1984. [ Links ]
Murray, D.W., 1997, "Local Buckling, Strain Localization, Wrinkling and Post-
Buckling Response of Line Pipe", Engineering Structures, V.19, N.5, pp. 360-
371. [ Links ]
Nixon, J.F., 1994, PIPSOL, "Stress Analysis Program for Pipes Subjected to
Ground Displacements", Nixon Geotech Limited, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada. [ Links ]
Structural Software Development Inc., 1981, "PIPLIN-III Computer Program for
Stress and Deformation Analysis of Pipelines", Structural Software Development
Inc., Berkeley, California. [ Links ]
Taylor, N., and Ben Gan, A., 1986, "Submarine Pipeline Buckling - Imperfection
Studies", Thin-Walled Structures, V.4, pp.295-323. [ Links ]
Yoosef-Ghodsi, N., Cheng, J.J.R., Murray, D.W., Doblanko, R., and Wilkie, S.,
2000, "Analytical Simulation and Field Measurements for a Wrinkle on the
Norman Wells Pipeline", Proc. of the Inter. Pipeline Conference IPC 2000, ASME
(OMAE Division), Oct. 1-5, 2000, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, pp. 931-938. [ Links ]
Yoosef-Ghodsi, N., and Murray, D.W., 2002, "Analysis of Buried Pipelines with
Thermal Applications", Structural Engineering Report No. 246, Dept. of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada. [ Links ]
Zhou, Z. J., and Murray, D.W., 1993, "Behaviour of Buried Pipelines Subjected to
Imposed Deformations", 12th Int. Conference on Offshore and Arctic Engineering,
ASCE, V.II, pp.5-122. [ Links ]
Zhou, Z.J. and Murray, D.W., 1994, "Analysis of Buried Pipelines (ABP) - Users
Manual", Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada. [ Links ]